N o 11B ISSN Première session, 38 e législature

Transcription

1 No. 11B N o 11B ISSN Legislative Assembly of Ontario First Session, 38 th Parliament Assemblée législative de l Ontario Première session, 38 e législature Official Report of Debates (Hansard) Journal des débats (Hansard) Monday 8 December 2003 Lundi 8 décembre 2003 Speaker Honourable Alvin Curling Clerk Claude L. DesRosiers Président L honorable Alvin Curling Greffier Claude L. DesRosiers

2 Hansard on the Internet Hansard and other documents of the Legislative Assembly can be on your personal computer within hours after each sitting. The address is: Le Journal des débats sur Internet L adresse pour faire paraître sur votre ordinateur personnel le Journal et d autres documents de l Assemblée législative en quelques heures seulement après la séance est : Index inquiries Reference to a cumulative index of previous issues may be obtained by calling the Hansard Reporting Service indexing staff at or Copies of Hansard Information regarding purchase of copies of Hansard may be obtained from Publications Ontario, Management Board Secretariat, 50 Grosvenor Street, Toronto, Ontario, M7A 1N8. Phone , or toll-free Renseignements sur l index Adressez vos questions portant sur des numéros précédents du Journal des débats au personnel de l index, qui vous fourniront des références aux pages dans l index cumulatif, en composant le ou le Exemplaires du Journal Pour des exemplaires, veuillez prendre contact avec Publications Ontario, Secrétariat du Conseil de gestion, 50 rue Grosvenor, Toronto (Ontario) M7A 1N8. Par téléphone : , , ou sans frais : Hansard Reporting and Interpretation Services 3330 Whitney Block, 99 Wellesley St W Toronto ON M7A 1A2 Telephone ; fax Published by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Service du Journal des débats et d interprétation 3330 Édifice Whitney ; 99, rue Wellesley ouest Toronto ON M7A 1A2 Téléphone, ; télécopieur, Publié par l Assemblée législative de l Ontario

3 517 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L ONTARIO Monday 8 December 2003 Lundi 8 décembre 2003 The House met at ORDERS OF THE DAY ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT (ELECTRICITY PRICING), 2003 LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA COMMISSION DE L ÉNERGIE DE L ONTARIO (ÉTABLISSEMENT DU COÛT DE L ÉLECTRICITÉ) Resuming the debate adjourned on December 1, 2003, on the motion for second reading of Bill 4, An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 with respect to electricity pricing / Projet de loi 4, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l énergie de l Ontario à l égard de l établissement du coût de l électricité. Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I d like to continue to speak on Bill 4, An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 with respect to electricity pricing. This bill calls for the increase of electricity rates in Ontario from 4.3 cents to up to 5.5 cents. There is a provision for those using 750 kilowatt hours or less per month to have their electricity rate charged at 4.7 cents per kilowatt hour. In order to qualify for that, you d have to live in a telephone booth, with no heat and no electric water heater. It s only a very small portion of the population who are going to qualify for the 4.7 cents per kilowatt hour. What we re looking at here is 5.5 cents, which is in excess of a 25% increase in the cost of electricity to power users in the province of Ontario. Twenty-five per cent is quite a hike, and it s of great concern for me with regard to residents in Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, seniors living in their own homes, who were encouraged to stay in their own homes by a property tax rebate with respect to the education portion of their property taxes when our party was in government. Now this government, in addition to taking away that property tax rebate, is further hitting these people with a 25% increase in their electricity costs. I m just thinking that sooner or later it s going to hit the breaking point for them. One senior in my riding said to me last weekend after the Santa Claus parade in Pembroke and certainly he doesn t view the Premier or the energy minister as Santa Claus this year John, by the time McGuinty s through with me, I ll have nothing but lint left in my pocket. That s where we re going with this government and this bill. It s not enough that you ll see your taxes going up in the new year; people who have their children in private schools have lost that credit to keep their children there, and most who send their children to those schools have a religious reason for doing so. What we ve got here is another tax, but more importantly, another broken promise. Yes, we ve heard it over and over again: a broken promise. This new government campaigned on the promise of maintaining a 4.3-cent per kilowatt hour hydro rate through Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): A Liberal promise. Mr Yakabuski: It was a Liberal promise. Thank you very much, the honourable member for Halton. It s just another in the litany of broken Liberal promises. On top of all those, we ve got the broken promise on tax hikes. I was reading an article this weekend in the Ottawa Citizen, where the Premier was talking about how he cannot guarantee that we will have a secure supply of energy through the cold winter months. Yet 1,400 new megawatts have come on-line since last winter, but this government insists that it is going to shut down almost 8,900 megawatts of power by 2007, which is of course our coal-fired generational capacity in Ontario Where are this Premier and this minister going to get the supply if they shut down those coal-fired plants? They re continuing to promote that line, hand that line, to the people of Ontario. That s another broken promise that s coming down the road, but they want to give them this one in the spring, I m sure. What this government says to me is that this government doesn t know where it s going on energy policy; it doesn t know where it s going on hydro policy. It s a stop-gap measure to try to convince the electorate they re actually doing something when they really don t even know where to start because they don t know where they re coming from. The only place they ever got an energy policy before was copying what we did the next day, reiterating that and saying, Yes, we support that, just like they did on all the changes in the energy act that this government did prior to Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I just wonder whether the member from Renfrew-Nipissing- Pembroke spoke to the issue of time allocation at all. I missed your other eight minutes from another day s debate and wondered whether you had spoken to it. I

4 518 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO 8 DECEMBER 2003 would want your comment on it, because when the Liberals were there and we were here, we always attacked the Conservative government for all the time allocation motions they introduced because we essentially thought it was a bad thing to do. Jim Bradley, the now Minister of Tourism, would never lose an opportunity, ever, to rush into this House from wherever he was and if he wasn t here, he was watching television and he would decry and denounce every time an allocation motion was introduced by the Conservative government and accuse them, rightly, each and every time of curtailing, strangulating that s my word debate, because we were never given the opportunity to have the full length of the debate that was necessary to engage the government in terms of whatever it was doing. This is a time allocation motion. Their programming motion has meant that they ve been able to lump together three bills and two motions and one other piece of governmental affair in a way that we have never seen before. While they, the Liberals, used to chide you for all the time allocation motions you would introduce, approximately 45 in the first term, the Liberals in their first opportunity, by a mere couple of weeks in this place, had introduced a so-called euphemism for time allocation motion, a programming motion, that curtails debate in this place. Shamefully they do it, and they do it unabashedly. I wonder if the member could comment on that. The Acting Speaker (Mr Joseph N. Tascona): Questions and comments. Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I m pleased to rise to make a few comments on the speech of the member opposite here in the House tonight. I think it s important for Ontarians to know and understand that the increase in the hydro rates will not take effect until April 1, We re giving people ample opportunity to plan ahead for that increase. The first 750 kilowatt hours consumed in any month would be priced at 4.7 cents per kilowatt hour, and a great number of homes will be under that 750 kilowatt hour threshold. So consumers need to understand that, and if they use more than that, they would be paying 5.5 cents per kilowatt hour. There are approximately 60% of Ontario households using less than 1,000 kilowatt hours per month, and since the proposed plan would not take effect until April of next year, consumers will have a chance to take conservation measures within their own home, reduce their consumption levels and limit the impact of any price on their electricity bill. I know I ve met many persons who have said they are going to do this exact thing. It s not so much that there s an increase from 4.3 cents to 4.7 cents. It s not that increase that brings it to their mind. They want to conserve. They understand that there s a duty to assist in ensuring that we have a reliable and predictable source of electric power here in Ontario. They re not doing it so much because of that 0.4-cent increase per kilowatt hour; they re doing it because they re good citizens of Ontario and recognize the mess that was left to this government to deal with. Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and it s great to see you in the Chair. I hope you have time to speak later on. I m very happy to be here this evening to support my colleague, from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke on his speech on Bill 4. It s very interesting to hear some of the comments he brought out. I sincerely believe that he s on the right track as far as job creation and the impact on the economy. But I d like to comment just for a moment on the comments from the member from Chatham-Kent Essex. He talked about why we are delaying it. It s interesting that the legislation is being delayed and won t take effect until Mr Chudleigh: The spring. Mr Dunlop: The spring. Why would that be? Quite clearly, that s the time we ll consume the most. This government has no intention of trying to lower the deficit. In fact, they d actually like to see it expand as much as possible. The fact of the matter is, if you were serious about it, it would come into effect January 1. That way you d be able to lower the extra money you ll pay on the deficit because that s the time of year when you use the most power and the most energy. They re not serious about it. In fact, they ve never been serious from day one about this so-called artificial deficit created by the so-called provincial consultant/auditor. I find it very confusing, the fact that they would leave it to that point. On top of that, after listening to the high-priced consultant, they ve got this $5.8-billion deficit; they still have four months to actually resolve the problem. Anyhow, my time is coming to an end, but I do want to thank the member for his comments and congratulate him on his efforts. Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I rise to comment on the speech from the member from Renfrew- Nipissing-Pembroke. I had the opportunity of coming to this Legislature about two weeks before the honourable Mike Harris decided to resign. I came here and I watched what he had done over the years previous to that. He had attacked, first of all, those on welfare and the poor. Then he turned his attack to the teachers. Then he turned to his attack to the unions. Then he turned his attack to the doctors. Then he turned his attack to those whom he called the professional whiners. But I want to tell you, the very finest attack he did of the lot was when he turned around and attacked his own party. He hoisted them on his own petard and he left them the legacy of privatization. Because on that legacy of privatization, he had done what no one else was able to do until that time: he caused them such enormous grief that they never recovered from it. In fact, in that privatization, they decided, first of all, to sell off the electricity system. Then they decided they were only going to sell off half of the electricity system. Then they decided they were going to have a rate price cap when everything seemed to be falling apart. In the process, they turned a once proud corporation, started by Sir Adam Beck more than 100 years ago, into a bumbling

5 8 DÉCEMBRE 2003 ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L ONTARIO 519 morass. And in the process they did themselves, I think, irreparable harm. The party opposite today is attempting to do something. I m not sure that what they re attempting to do will be enough, because I think they re falling into many of the same pitfalls as the previous government. You have not erased the idea of privatization and although you re kinder and gentler, I must admit you have not done what is necessary. You are going to continue on the same failed policy of attempting caps, although they re at a higher rate, and they too will be doomed to failure The Acting Speaker: Response? Mr Yakabuski: I d like to thank the members from Trinity-Spadina, Chatham-Kent Essex and Beaches-East York, and my colleague from Simcoe North for his comments on the bill and on my address. My colleague from Simcoe North I must say is certainly one of the hardestworking members I ve encountered since my time here. My colleague from Trinity-Spadina talked about time allocation. I m not sure that that was the bill we were talking about, but I really wasn t catching on to his drift there. Back to the hydro bill: We talked about home owners. I m concerned about the effect on small business and farmers in the province of Ontario, in particular in my riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. I m concerned about the effect it is going to have on them, a 25% increase in their hydro rates, starting April 1. It s just a sleight of hand and a ruse that s being perpetrated on the people to hold this increase throughout the wintertime. They ll pass the bill before we go on recess. By the time we get back, or the rate increase starts affecting them after April 1, we ll be gone on the summer recess. They ll be hiding from the people of Ontario again when the effects of this are truly felt in the summertime, when the air conditioning bills start coming in. This is going to drive jobs out of Ontario, out of my riding. It s going to hurt business. It s going to hurt farmers. It s just another tax increase on the people of the province. It is just one more in what has already been, and promises to be, a continuing long line of broken Liberal promises. The Acting Speaker: Further debate. Mr Marchese: I m happy to have this opportunity to say a couple of things. Welcome, the citizens of Ontario watching this political program. I know there are a lot of you. We re on live. It s 7:03 and we re here for a while, so stay tuned. First of all I want to attack the fact that this is a time allocation motion and would remind the Liberals of this: The Liberals started changing the rules back when they were in power, from 1985 to 1987 and 1987 to The New Democrats continued changing the rules in 1990 because we felt nobody in the opposition benches Tories or Liberals would allow us to govern. They hated the fact that they had a New Democratic government for the very first time, so they were using all sorts of measures to slow us down. We changed the rules. The Tories came in and they changed the rules again. I say to my friend from Don Valley West that each and every time we all thought, in government, that we had learned our lesson, it was a mistake. When we did it, it was a mistake. When the Liberals did it before us, it was a mistake. When the Tories did it, it was a serious mistake. Now the Liberals are doing it as well, over and over again. The member from Don Valley West is new, so she doesn t much appreciate what I am saying. I can understand that. Interjection. Mr Marchese: You do? Ms Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): There must be a reason. Search your soul. Why does it happen? Mr Marchese: Search the soul. Why does it happen? Each and every time we change the rules it was a terrible thing it got worse and worse. The member from Don Valley West, who hasn t yet had the opportunity to search her soul, doesn t quite understand that when she does have the opportunity and the time to ruminate on the matter, ponder it seriously or look inside her soul, she will understand that each time governments change the rules, it makes it harder and harder in this place to govern efficiently and to do things efficiently and oftentimes effectively. So when she says, Search your soul and just think about why we re doing it, I know why you re doing it. I know why we did it, and I m saying to you, rumpfolk, you re making another mistake. What s more tragic, beyond the rump here in the middle, is that the more experienced members across the way who ought to know better still haven t had the opportunity to search their souls. When the member from Hamilton East was here, and the member from Ancaster-Dundas-Flamorough-Aldershot was there, and Jim Bradley, the now Minister of Tourism, was there experienced people and others I have not mentioned but feel included in the criticism you were all there, each and every time, attacking the Conservative government for strangulating debate. And it was wrong then, wasn t it? Why would it be less wrong now, when you re doing it? If you could decry it, attack it, diminish it, dismiss it then as an effort by the government to curtail, strangulate debate; if you could understand it then, why Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we re discussing Bill 4, the energy bill, and I believe that the member is not speaking to the bill. The Acting Speaker: Member from Trinity-Spadina. Mr Marchese: I thank her for being around and for her programmed response to the programming motion, under which we are here debating Bill 4. I wanted to discuss for a full five minutes why it s wrong to do what you re doing, why it was wrong when you were there and why it s more profoundly wrong when you are now in the government benches. If you understood it then, how could you so easily forget and misunderstand it now? It s just sad, sad, sad, pitiful, pitiful politics. It s no wonder

6 520 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO 8 DECEMBER 2003 we have a hard time convincing people out there that maybe each successive government that comes in might be a little better than the one they threw out. Maybe. But I don t see it, and let me tell you why. When we talk about broken promises, what do promises mean when people make them? They mean that the listener, listening and voting for that government, actually believes that they re going to carry them through. Why wouldn t they? Witness the statements of the now Premier, then leader of the Liberal Party, who Ms Di Cocco: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask that you remind the member that we are speaking to a bill. I know that he has a lot of important issues that he wants to discuss, but in this House when we have a bill before us, I think it s precedent to speak to the bill. The Acting Speaker: I would just remind the member that we are speaking on Bill 4, An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, Mr Marchese: Speaker, thank you. McGuinty quotes to remember, Madam from Sarnia: I think the most important thing to do at this particular point... is to put a cap on those rates through to Madame Di Cocco from Sarnia remembers those words well. Mr Prue: Sarnia-Lambton. Mr Marchese: Sarnia-Lambton, thank you. It s close. Dalton McGuinty, Focus Ontario, November 23, 2002: We will keep the price cap in place until Hydro You Can Trust : the Ontario Liberal Plan for hydro, released September It s somewhere in the plan. And McGuinty continues. There are a few quotes, Speaker, on Bill 4. The Liberals, meanwhile, frontrunners in the polls, vow to maintain the rate cap at 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour until 2006 the same time line the Tories have promised Broadcast News, September 29, 2003: Dalton McGuinty says a Liberal government would build additional hydroelectric generating plants... McGuinty also said he would keep a rate cap in place until 2006 and keep hydro in public hands. Canadian Press, September 8, 2003: Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty said his party would keep hydro in public hands. McGuinty said, The 4.3-cent-a-kilowatt hour freeze on rates will go sometime after It s going to add to the hydro debt, and if there was another way around it, I would be delighted to entertain it poor man. It s going to have to come out of rates. It s going to be like a mortgage and we will have to pay it a little longer. I m exhausted. There s more: This is a quick fix, a transparent attempt to buy votes, to buy favour with our own money, said Dalton McGuinty in the Ottawa Citizen, November 15, 2002, in reference to the Tory hydro rate cap. McGuinty wouldn t conceive of doing anything such as a quick fix, a transparent attempt to buy votes, to buy favour with our own money. Oh, no. He understood well why the Tories were doing it. No one is excusing the Tories for putting on the rate cap no one. We attacked it because it was very good politics. Before the election it was a very good Interjection: Clever. Mr Marchese: very clever thing to do. They thought, Ha, it s OK if we put $700 million or $800 million off the books. Nobody s going to see it. The taxpayer would be on the hook in the end, but that s irrelevant. Before the election we can put on the rate cap, because that s OK. It was evil, but you people and your leader said that was OK and would be kept until 2006, not a day less. A mere couple of weeks into your government you abandoned that. You said, We didn t know there was a deficit. Gerry Phillips says there was a risk of a $5-billion Interjections. Mr Marchese: Quiet down. You re going to have two minutes soon. It was a mere $5-billion risk. What s a risk if it s not a deficit? What s a deficit if it s not a risk? Gerry, you knew it then. McGuinty, you knew it then. You didn t keep your promise. Why not? The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments. Hon Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I rise to say a few words about the energy bill, Bill 4, and the fact that there are times when we have to make tough decisions, and as a government we have the responsibility to define when those times exist. Interestingly enough, during my campaign there were people who said to me, We re not sure the commitment you have made on that cap is the right thing to do. Certainly we thought it was viable. I think it s also important that when you discover things have changed, circumstances are different, it takes a very big person, a very big party, a very big government to recognize we need to make a change in what we previously committed to. Basically, what we are saying is that we re not going to subject future generations to what has been going on over the past several years, because what was going on over the past several years was irresponsible. What we are trying to do with this bill and all the subsequent actions we ll be taking as a responsible government is to manage wisely. I think that s what Ontarians expect of us, and that s what we re going to be doing. It s not going to be easy all the time, but leadership is not easy at all times. We do have difficult decisions to make, and we do have challenges to face. It s really important for the people of Ontario to know that they have a government that s prepared to step up to these challenges. Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I m pleased to be able to make a few comments on the speech the member just gave. It s amazing how easily the NDP forgets. I d like to remind them, and I know it s tough to do short-term memory-but five years and we had $10

7 8 DÉCEMBRE 2003 ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L ONTARIO 521 billion each year. They left a $50-billion debt, and now they re out there complaining. Interjection: An economic lecture from the NDP. Mr Murdoch: You re right. It s amazing to get an economic lecture from the NDP here tonight. Earlier today I remember them talking about the Conservatives helping out the Liberals. I remember when the NDP and the Liberals got in bed together. It was called the bed-wetters accord do you remember that, with Peterson? It started this whole mess, the whole spiral downward. Do you remember that time? Peterson and Bob Rae got in bed together, the two of them. They were in this House, and they started the spiral downward. Remember that? Then they let the NDP come in, and they said, Heck, we ve already started spending money. Peterson has been here for three years and he ran a big deficit. He said he didn t have one, of course. Maybe he didn t have Gerry Phillips helping him out then. They left the NDP here, and they had $10 billion a year. So now we re into another broken promise. I m just amazed that the member over there said, We changed our minds partway through, or something like that. I didn t see the ads change. All I remember is that ad with Dalton McGuinty looking out through the television set saying, I will not raise your taxes. What happened? Somebody must have taken that picture of him when he wasn t thinking too brightly. I will not raise your taxes. Then they get here and start breaking promises: Holy cow, we ve got to raise taxes. Then they ve got this bogus deficit the year is only half done. They hire a high-priced researcher to go out and look at it. They weren t going to do that, but they did it another broken promise. Mr Prue: It s always a pleasure to rise and comment on the speeches of my colleague from Trinity-Spadina. He is always eloquent, always poignant and most often, although not today, extremely humorous when he speaks. What he talked about today were a number of home truths, a number of things the people of this province have come to know and come to rely on and come to consider absolutely true. It is a home truth that we are here tonight debating this in a truncated format because we have been programmed. As little as the members opposite might not want to talk about that, that is a form of closure, a brand new form in this House, and it s worse because it s an omnibus program closure. It s something that s never been done before in this province and that I hope is never done again. Mr Marchese: A programming motion is very new. Mr Prue: It s very, very new and very- Interjection: It was in Mr Prue: OK. They re going back to 1889 trying to search for some solutions. That is a home truth. That is absolutely what is happening here tonight. The second home truth is that this government ran on a platform of doing one thing and then is doing another. They promised that the rate cap would stay till 2006, and at their very first opportunity, for whatever reason, they lifted that rate cap a broken promise. Another home truth is that the hydro policy they are espousing today is virtually identical to the hydro policy of the government they are replacing. It is almost impossible to see the difference between the hydro policy of the new Liberal government vis-à-vis the policy of the old Conservative government. It is floundering from place to place. There is no commitment to whether they re going to build nuclear facilities or not build them, whether they re going to have a rate cap that floats or moves over time or they re not going to have it. I would suggest that the home truths of the member for Trinity- Spadina are exactly right. Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott- Russell): I listened carefully to the comments delivered by the member for Trinity-Spadina. Let me tell you, I was in a similar position to what he is in at the present time. I ve been listening to the debate, I ve looked at the OPG report that was tabled last week and I also met with people in my riding after I fought very strongly to have a cap on hydro. But the people are telling me, Are you the man who misinformed us, or was it the government? The people ask me that. After looking at the whole situation after the blackout we had on August 20, the following day we paid up to 53 cents per kilowatt hour for what we had to buy. Looking at this last month, in October, we paid 5.90 cents per kilowatt hour during the month. Every day of the week we re going in the red by two million dollars a day I did receive a letter from a hydro commission and I m just going to read part of a paragraph: Local distribution companies, including Hydro Hawkesbury Inc, have been under tremendous financial pressure due to the electricity rate cap instituted in November In preparation for the opening of the electricity market in May 2002, distribution companies were directed by the government and our regulator, the Ontario Energy Board, to spend $650 million on changes to the billing and settlement systems that allow the market to operate. All the time we were told by the former government that we were realizing profits of over $200 million a month. This is why I fought for those people. The Acting Speaker: Response, the member from Trinity-Spadina. Mr Marchese: I thank both friends and foes. To the member for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, who mocks the NDP and said, Ha, look what deficit you left us, which was in the order of $9 billion or so, if the NDP could accumulate such a deficit in a recession, how quickly they forget how worse it can be, that in a good economy they can leave us close to $6 billion in deficit. Imagine that if they could do that in a good economy, what they would have done in a deficit where welfare payments went from one billion to six billion bucks. Please, Bill, you shouldn t remind anyone about your legacy. You tire me out.

8 522 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO 8 DECEMBER 2003 The member for Scarborough East says it takes a big person, a big party, to make a change and that leadership is not easy. Sorry member for Scarborough East, leadership would have been for your leader to have said, prior to the election The rate cap is wrong. That would have been leadership before the election, not after the election. How easy it is for you to assume the cloak of responsibility. These are the cards we have been dealt. What else can we do? Leadership would have been for you and McGuinty, prior to the election, to say, The rate cap is profoundly wrong and it s costing us $700 million to $800 million and it will grow. You didn t have McGuinty saying that then. What you had him say was, It s an attempt to bribe us with our own money, and he was right. Interjection. Mr Marchese: The member for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, please, you re still too loud for my taste. Leadership is doing it before the election, not after. You broke a promise that was important to the people of Ontario. How you can live with that is beyond me. The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Ms Di Cocco: Thank you, Speaker, and congratulations on your new duties. I look forward to the next four years of this. I want to congratulate you. First of all, I d like to say to the members from the NDP, and particularly the member for Trinity-Spadina, that when I listen to your comments regarding this bill, I wonder sometimes if in debating there had been just a little bit less theatrics and a little more substantive argument, maybe it would have been a little easier to go to the polls on October 2. One of the problems I think we find in the world of politics is that we have an awful lot of theatrics. At the very root of what responsible government is all about and I say this because the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities articulated it very well you have to make an analysis based on the evidence and the facts before you, and then you make the judgement. You do that, and when you know it s the responsible and the right thing to do, then you proceed when you do have the position of decision-making. Even though it s probably less expedient politically, but you know it s the right thing to do, then you do it. The whole electricity file is incredibly complex and it s been a tremendous debacle in this province. We had ideologies for the last 13 years, one to the left that, when encountered by all of their fiscal issues, threw away their ideologies and decided to go a different route. Considering the circumstances, they thought that was the way they should go. Then we had the Conservatives come into power and they had one idea in mind: Privatization will take care of all the problems that we re going to encounter. That s what they did to the electricity file. They saw the deep-rooted problems that were there. In 1995, even though we knew we were producing electricity at a greater cost, Mike Harris decided to keep the cap on. They decided to keep selling electricity far below what it cost to generate it, so we ended up increasing that debt. But they did something else. In 1997 they decided to put on a cloak of secrecy and remove Ontario Hydro from freedom of information so no one could really access the information. This was apparently in preparation for privatization. To make matters worse, under this cloak of secrecy, all types of appointments were made, many appointments. It became a bit of a Senate. I say that because there was no accountability, but lots of money flowed to individuals. We remember Clitheroe and the huge yacht, and I can go on and on. We ratcheted up these huge bills, millions of dollars, and do you know what? No one was looking after the consumer, the person who has to pay their bills. Every single day, all the ordinary person wants to do is make life better for their kids and their families individuals who go out to work every day and small businesses who are trying to create wealth in this economy. And what happened? We had a government that was out of control and this huge, huge entity called OPG that, as we see, was out of control as well. We have a responsibility. The people of Ontario entrusted Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals with governing this province. We take a look at what we have before us, and what do we see? We see that we have to spend $2 million per day to keep our lights on. If we keep doing that and we could. It could be very politically expedient to do that. Let s just paper over the problem. But we said no, we can t that because it s not right. We have to find a way to be able to gradually bring the rate of cost up to what it costs to generate electricity because we cannot keep doing this. Our children and our grandchildren will not thank us for it. Somebody is going to have to pay the price at some point in time, so we have to deal with it. We have to try and deal with it in a responsible way. Let s stop this sort of fudging the numbers because we don t want to tell the public the real story, because if we tell them the real story we re not going look very good politically. That was, unfortunately, the style of the governing Conservatives of the day. It was all about image. It was all about messaging. It wasn t about reality. It wasn t about dealing with the hard truth, that we were sinking into a bigger and bigger hole when it comes to our electricity What have we tried to do? We have said that starting April 1, 2004, the first 750 kilowatt hours consumed in any month would be priced at 4.7 cents per kilowatt hour. If we consume above that, then we re going to go to 5.5 cents per kilowatt hour. In my riding, I was told by our Bluewater Power that the average consumption per household is 790 kilowatt hours per month. That is the average consumption in my riding. You say, Is this onerous? Of course, it s always onerous when we have to pay bills. But we have to be realistic. We also have to give adequate time for the public, for those who have to pay the bills, to try to conserve energy and give them an incentive to conserve so that if

9 8 DÉCEMBRE 2003 ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L ONTARIO 523 they keep it under a certain rate of consumption, they won t pay as much. One of the issues that I believe we have here in Ontario, and we ve had it, I believe, for eight years, is this myth that somehow, if you can keep messaging something out a certain way, it will eventually become the truth. Well, it hasn t. We have an incredible, if you want to call it, challenge before us, but we have the political will to be responsible in how we make our decisions, and to deal with the problem and to try to solve it. The Minister of Energy has taken some incredible steps; that is, he had to take a look at who was running the show and hold them accountable, because they re paid the big bucks. They re paid the big bucks to make this whole entity run, and what did we find? We found cost overruns at four times the initial price, without explanation. Also, we found that there s very little expertise on the board. This is what was amazing: One of the largest cost entities in the province and a board of directors who are all finance people, and they were all friends of the Tories; unfortunately, they did not have the expertise to bring this huge monster in line so that we could deal with our electricity issues in a more responsible way. We have to keep the lights on in this province, we have to restore confidence in our electricity system, and we have a lot of good people there who want to do that. But we have to do some rejigging of those who are making decisions at the top, because so far it hasn t worked. What we ve seen is that we ve added $800 million to the debt of Ontario Hydro and we re not in any better shape than we were eight years ago, unfortunately. Mr Chudleigh: That was an interesting dissertation on hydro and on electricity and on whose fault what is. On October 23, I think it was, the swearing-in process, the Premier made a wonderful speech. It was a very emotional speech. He was talking directly to the people of Ontario and he said that we re going to work as hard as you work. We re going to roll up our sleeves and we re going to do what you do every day. We re going to work very, very hard. Since October 23, I ve heard them complain about the hydro situation in Ontario. I ve heard them complain about the budget, I ve heard them complain about the situation that Ontario finds itself in today, but I haven t see them do one single thing to correct it. When we were elected in 1995, in the first 30 days of our government, we brought in a bill; we brought in a mini-budget that cut $2.3 billion off the budget. Immediately on being elected, we did that. The other thing the Premier said on that day, on October 23, after he told the people he was going to work as hard as they did and he hasn t done a damn thing since he said, We are not going to blame others. Interjections. Mr Chudleigh: Withdraw. That was probably unparliamentary, and I ll withdraw. The Acting Speaker: Member from Halton withdraws his comment. Mr Chudleigh: Sorry. But he also said that we are not going to blame others. Since October 23, I have heard little else from this government than blame being placed on everybody in the province, everybody in the county, with the exception, of course, of themselves. But you can expect that because they are, after all, Liberals. Mr Marchese: To the member from Sarnia-Lambton, accusing the NDP of theatrics and, If only we could deal with the substantive issues. Dalton McGuinty, Ottawa Citizen, November 15, 2002, says of the rate cap the Tories had imposed, This is a quick fix, a transparent attempt to buy votes, to buy favour with our own money. On November 23, 2002, the same McGuinty, your leader: I think the most important thing to do at this particular point in time is to put a cap on those rates through to What s theatrics, in your mind, Madam from Sarnia- Lambton? Could you define it for me when you get up and have another opportunity to do your two-minute conclusion? Is it theatrics for us to accuse your leader of saying something before the election and then changing his mind after? Or is it substantive debate and discussion on the issue? What your bill does, Madam from Sarnia-Lambton, is this: The rates will rise from 4.3 cents to 4.7 cents for the first 750 kilowatt hours used in a month. After that, the rate goes up to 5.5 cents. This plan will stay in place until the Ontario Energy Board develops a new one in May This attacks the consumers once again. They re going to get increases in distribution rates and transmission rates and everything else, in all that list that they re going to hike. While you say this, no one is looking after the consumer. All this does is increase rates; it doesn t solve our hydro problem. McGuinty replaces the old rate cap with a new rate cap, but the same profit-takers and commission-makers are still in place. Nothing has changed. The new Liberal law makes it easier to hike distribution rates. This is not energy conservation; it s a problem you haven t solved. Mr Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): My honourable opponent opposite, the MPP from Trinity-Spadina, has asked for a definition of theatrics. I d be very pleased to provide him with one: It s something that is meant for entertainment, for amusement, full of passion and, as Shakespeare said, a show full of sound and fury, but at the end of the day, signifying nothing, sir. That s probably a pretty good definition of theatrics. I would also like to deal, with respect, to some of the comments from the MPP from Beaches-East York, in which he very rightly delineated some of the history and philosophy emanating from the Tory party. Mr Chudleigh: On a point on order, Mr Speaker: I recognize the member s a new member, but I d just like to point out that when you re doing the so-called two minute hits, you re supposed to be making the comments on the person who was making the speech, not on the

10 524 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO 8 DECEMBER 2003 individuals who were commenting on the speech. That is parliamentary tradition. I just point that out for your edification. The Acting Speaker: That s in order. Mr Qaadri: I would like to first of all deal with some of the comments made, with respect, by the MPP from Beaches-East York, who delineated a little bit of the philosophic stance coming from the Tory party, talking about the attempted privatization. As my honourable colleague, the MPP from Sarnia-Lambton, Caroline Di Cocco, quite rightly pointed out, we in the McGuinty government wish to bring responsibility back to the hydro and energy sector. I would like to remind this chamber and Ontario that it was the Tory party who was engaging in a full-blown privatization of Ontario Hydro. The company that was going to underwrite that placement was going to pocket, for that single transaction alone, $100 million. We in Ontario, we in the government, believe we should put people first and that s why I support this bill Mr Dunlop: It s a pleasure once again to rise this evening and discuss Bill 4. There are a lot of interesting comments coming out of here tonight. It s always interesting to hear the different opinions from each of the different caucuses, but I don t think there s anyone in this House, in any political party, who can actually stand and honestly say that they haven t had a problem with Hydro, that they haven t been part of the problem with Hydro, and that takes us back 30 years. I really do hope that we can get it right. I do disagree this time with the lifting of the cap. I thought that we were going in the right direction and generation would come onside, but the fact of the matter is, I think you know full well that you are not going to resolve this. Interjection. Mr Dunlop: Yes, we would have kept it in place. We promised it to We kept our promises. It s got to be shameful for you to go back to your constituents today, face farmers, face small business people, face small manufacturing companies and say, We did it for the good of you. You know full well after you ve blatantly stood on TV and promised two things, We won t raise your taxes and we ll leave the cap in place until 2006 Interjection. Mr Dunlop: To the member over here who just made the comment about the Tory blame: I can remember specifically Dalton McGuinty, almost two years ago to the day I believe it was December 12 standing out in front in a scrum, saying to the media, I fully support privatization. I support the sale of Hydro. Dalton McGuinty said that, the gentleman who sits right over there. Mr Chudleigh: The Premier? Mr Dunlop: I think he s still the Premier today, yes. I haven t seen him for a few days, but he s probably the Premier. The fact of the matter is that that s what he said, that he fully supported the privatization of Ontario Hydro and OPG. Ladies and gentlemen, again thank you for the opportunity to stand here and say a few words. The Acting Speaker: Response? Ms Di Cocco: I thank all the members in this House for their comments. First of all I want to, for the record, suggest that this government to date, in the very short time it has had in this House three weeks has taken some significant steps and significant actions to address this issue. We have lifted the cap. We made a fair and responsible solution to this problem. Our government wants to promote a safe, reliable and sustainable supply of energy. The plan is a major step toward attracting new electricity supply in Ontario for future energy needs. We are sending a clear signal that Ontario intends to deal with electricity in a practical, sensible and transparent way. This plan reaffirms our commitment to modernize our electricity system by attracting new supply, encouraging conservation and delivering cleaner energy to the people of Ontario. We have made very strong commitments to get this right. In four years down the road we will be again speaking on this issue. It is with our track record that we are going to go to the people of Ontario again. This energy and electricity issue is something we ve dealt with head-on in the first few weeks in this Legislature. I say to the members on all sides of the House that it is to the benefit of the future of Ontario that we must and will get this electricity file right for now and for future generations. The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Mr Chudleigh: Congratulations on your appointment as Deputy Speaker in the House. Was it an appointment or was it an election? The Acting Speaker: It was an appointment. Mr Chudleigh: It was an appointment. Well, good for you. The Acting Speaker: As second Chair. Mr Chudleigh: I m sure that with your background and the integrity you ve shown in this place over the years, you ll make an excellent Deputy Speaker. Interjection: Just about as good as Bert. Mr Chudleigh: You can t fit in his uniform, but I don t think Bert wants to give it up. I m sure he s keeping that in a special place in his house. He ll put it on on special days, as I m sure you will. I believe we re talking about Bill 4 today. It s an interesting bill. As the member from Simcoe North talked about, there hasn t been a party in this House for the last 30 years that hasn t had a problem with Ontario Hydro and electricity supply in this province. I guess my main concern on this particular bill was that of the broken promise. When you look into the camera, when you promise the people of Ontario that you re going to do something and then very blatantly, only a few short weeks after the election, you change your mind and you say, Well, it wasn t sustainable, you re really saying, Well, I hadn t thought it through. You might be saying, Well, I didn t expect to get elected. Well, it just didn t

11 8 DÉCEMBRE 2003 ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L ONTARIO 525 work out. You ve broken that promise to the people of Ontario, and that is breaking a faith. I don t think the people of Ontario will forget that very quickly. I don t think they ll forget it in four years, and I think that might be a label that rests on the shoulders of this government for some time to come. That is unfortunate. Along with the broken promises of the tax cut, which was one that I think every Ontarian saw that television ad during the campaign with a very sombre, very seriouslooking Dalton McGuinty looking into the camera and saying, I will not increase your taxes, and then bringing in a bill that not only increases taxes but increases them in monumental proportions $4.4 billion the largest tax increase in Ontario s history. Another broken promise. That s Bill 2, the Fiscal Responsibility Act. A $4.4- billion increase, another broken promise, just like the hydro cap broken promise. I know the members opposite don t want to talk about broken promises, but I m sorry, I m in opposition. It falls on my shoulders to remind you and to remind the people of Ontario about the broken promises of this government. There were other broken promises less than 18 hours after he was elected. In one of his campaign promises Dalton McGuinty said that he wouldn t be hiring any expensive consultants. Eighteen hours later, of course, he was hiring Erik Peters at $1,500 an hour to come up with a bogus budget. It was as if he started out his process Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough- Aldershot): Your guy. Mr Chudleigh: Oh, Erik Peters was not our guy. You had to read some of his reports. No, he certainly wasn t our guy. Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Everyone else is to blame. Mr Chudleigh: No, we don t blame people. Dalton said he wasn t going to blame people. That was his third comment on October 23. He said, We re not going to blame others. Interjections. The Acting Speaker: Minister of Energy, come to order. Mr Chudleigh: That was your leader s comment: We re not going to blame others. Hon Mr Duncan: Where are you sitting now? Mr Chudleigh: Yes, we re sitting over here, and it s our responsibility to remind people of the broken promises. That expensive auditor brought in a bogus budget. It was as if this government was trying to create a financial crisis. I remember that comment when you were sitting over here. You were screaming about creating a crisis. Well, let s wait and see what our Minister of Finance bring in in his report. When is he bringing that in, Thursday? Let s see what he says. Let s see if he s not trying to create a further financial crisis. It ll be interesting to see what he says. There was also the issue of the respect for tradition. That was something the Premier said he was going to do: He was going to respect tradition. There were a number of things that happened that didn t necessarily show a tremendous respect for tradition One of them was the retrogression back to appointing a Speaker as opposed to electing a Speaker. We elected a number of Speakers since 1990, a situation that the NDP brought in when they were in government, and electing a Speaker was a democratic process. All of a sudden, in 2003, we ve retrogressed back before 1990, and the Speaker is no longer elected, he is appointed. The other issue that didn t necessarily respect tradition was the seating of the rump and dividing the opposition. That was something that goes back to 1947, when that same situation existed in this House. That s a fairly long tradition, going back to 1947, and yet you turned your back on that tradition as well. The broken promises are something, along with the hydro situation, that is going to rest on your shoulders for some time to come with the public of Ontario. The democratization of this House is something you ve talked about, and yet here we are with a finance bill of monumental proportions and with an energy bill that is a very significant situation to many Ontarians, and you ve given one day s notice for one day of hearings on the bill. That s a little difficult to stomach as part of a democratization on this province. Mr Dave Levac (Brant): Talk to your House leader. Mr Chudleigh: The tail doesn t wag the dog; I m sorry. When these increases start to go to through, there are a number of things that are going to happen in Ontario over the next few months. Commercial users of electricity are going to have an 18% increase in their hydro bills. Consumers are going to have up to a 28% increase in their hydro bills. With the minimum wage increase, which is ratcheted up all through the scale, it isn t just the lowest-income people who get an increase, if minimum wage goes up a buck, $12-an-hour people go up a buck; they expect that to happen. Over the course of the next few months, that will happen. There will be an increase in the wages of Ontario business of 15% or 16%. By 2006, corporate tax rates will go up 57% a 57% increase in corporate tax rates. You re putting up their electrical rates, you re putting up their wage rates and you re putting up their corporate tax rates. Where do you expect the economics of this province to come from if not from small business? Small business hires 82% of the people in Ontario. Those are businesses that are less than 100 employees. Some 82% of the people of this province work for those kinds of companies, and you re hitting them with increased electrical rates, which they all use; you re hitting them with increased minimum wage rates; and you re hitting them with increased corporate taxes. The results to this province, I suspect, are going to mean that Dalton McGuinty will become the Buffalo man of the year, as the Buffalo economy expands as they exit Ontario. Corporations have all kinds of flexibility.